Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abizaid has requested more forces
United Press International ^ | 4/9/2004 5:44 PM | Pamela Hess, UPI Pentagon Correspondent

Posted on 04/10/2004 8:47:30 AM PDT by 68skylark

WASHINGTON, April 9 (UPI) -- U.S. Central Command chief Gen. John Abizaid has requested more forces for Iraq and was discussing plans Friday with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a senior defense official confirmed.

Abizaid told reporters in Iraq he wanted several thousand more troops, and indicated they may come from the 3rd Infantry Division, which only returned from its last Iraq deployment six months ago.

Pentagon officials said it was unlikely the 3rd ID would be called up so quickly.

The senior defense official said Abizaid's request was too specific for a warfighting commander to make. The forces Abizaid gets will be decided on by the Joint Staff in Washington. He is supposed to limit his requests to capabilities and Washington decides, based on scheduling and skills and equipment, how to fill those requirements.

Rumsfeld promised this week if Abizaid wanted more forces he would get them.

Whatever the military requirement, adding troops to the force in Iraq carries with it a poltical price. More than a year ago, then Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki told Congress the occupation of Iraq would require "several hundred thousand" troops. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz called that estimate "wildly off the mark." The Pentagon leaked the name of Shinseki's replacement months before his scheduled retirement, rendering him a lame duck.

In his farewell speech at his retirement ceremony last year, Shinseki warned the Army was being over-committed.

"Beware the 12-division strategy for a 10-division Army," he said. "Our soldiers and families bear the risk and the hardship of carrying a mission load that exceeds what force capabilities we can sustain, so we must alleviate risk and hardship by our willingness to resource the mission requirements."

As Shinseki predicted, the Army is very heavily tapped. Between Iraq and Afghanistan, nine of its 10 divisions are either on deployment or have recently been relieved by other forces and are due for rest and retraining.

The U.S Marine Corps has tapped roughly 70,000 Marines for duty in Iraq next year alone. The senior defense official said Marines are likely to be called on to fill in the ranks because of the strain on the Army.

Abizaid asked his staff for options in Iraq earlier this week as violence in the country increased, sparked by a rebellious Shiite cleric and insurgent attacks on coalition forces. More than 200 U.S. personnel have been injured in combat in the last 24 hours, according to Defense Department statistics

Some fraction of the 1st Armored Division, due to rotate out of Iraq by May, could be forced to stay for another three months, Pentagon officials said. One officer with the division in Baghdad has already had his redeployment orders slowed, he told United Press International.

There are now 135,000 U.S. personnel in Iraq, some of who are overlapping as new forces rotate in to relieve others. The number of troops was supposed to drop to 105,000 by June. However, with increased violence and the potential for more as the June 30 hand over deadline nears, that target may be unrealistic.

Fighting in the last week has claimed at least 40 American soldiers and Marines. U.S. Central Command said Friday two soldiers and three Marines were killed April 8 and April 9. One soldier from the 13th Corps Support Command was killed and 12 injured in an attack on their convoy near Baghdad International Airport Friday. Also Friday, one 1st Cavalry Division soldier was killed and another wounded when they were ambushed as they responded to a mortar attack near their base.

Three Marines were killed April 8 in the restive Al Anbar province, the region that encompasses Falujah and Ramadi, where insurgents have stepped up operations.

There have been at least 458 U.S. forces killed in action Iraq as of Friday. A total of 3,269 have been wounded in combat since the war began more than a year ago.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: 3rdid; abizaid; dod; iraq; rumsfeld; troopstrength
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: 68skylark
I remember then 1LT Mark Kimmitt being my jumpmaster for dozens of jumps in the 2nd Ranger Bn. I also remember at West Point talking with then Maj Abizaid about his actions in Granada as a Company Commander. I still know dozens of classmates who are O-5s in the army. They really are great people. They are also smart enough to know that the US military is stretched way too thin and that if another war breaks out, we do not have the forces to win. My brother .... another West Pointer .... is still in the Guard .... and it is clear they are stretched way too thin. The Army knows how to handle a draft, 12 divisions isn't even close .... 16 divisions maybe.
21 posted on 04/10/2004 9:39:46 AM PDT by Yasotay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
Maybe you forgot that Rumsfeld said we would be welcomed as "liberators".... there are many things that Rumsfeld has got wrong. The Army also knows how to fight much better then you know and the Marine model is the wrong model.
22 posted on 04/10/2004 9:47:14 AM PDT by Yasotay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Yasotay
I appreciate your articulate comments. And it sounds like you've got lots more military experience (including more military parachute jumps) than I do. I guess I'll just have to respecfully disagree that a military draft would be a good idea.
23 posted on 04/10/2004 9:49:10 AM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Maybe the military won't be such a Bush slam dunk vote as they were in 2000. Certainly the families might be less supportive of Bush than in 2000.

I think that if they had counted the 2000 military vote, this MAY become an issue by November, but I don't think so.

24 posted on 04/10/2004 9:49:56 AM PDT by lorrainer ("I don't do nuance." -- GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
This "insurgency" is going to be over in a couple of weeks. Sending troops now wouldn't even make sense unless they were specific troops with specific disciplines. They could hardly get there before the trouble was over.

If Abazid asks for more troops, he is requesting a different mix, not more bodies.

25 posted on 04/10/2004 9:51:00 AM PDT by McGavin999 (Expecting others to pay for your enjoyment of FreeRepublic is socialism: Donate now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

We were welcomed as liberators.

Rummy got the war right. Where he's screwed the pooch is with the peace.

BTW, the only people that are seriously talking about a new draft and putting forth legislation are democrats trying to make people think that voting for Bush or fighting islamofascism will mean sending their kids to die by the hundred thousand. I can't believe that anyone would honestly think a conscript army would be useful in the WoT. We're going to win this thing with selective attacks, special forces, counter-intelligence, diplomacy, and financial warfare, not by conquering every muslim nation and building concentration camps, much as the thought appeals to some people. Iraq is a job that's been left unfinished ever since the first war but there's no need to occupy Syria, Iran, SA, etc.
26 posted on 04/10/2004 9:55:30 AM PDT by ConservativeNewsNetwork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
Can they do shuffling with troops ready to go elsewhere? I can see a possible change in Afghanistan forces going for one year instead of nine months.
27 posted on 04/10/2004 9:55:55 AM PDT by armymarinemom (Bring Them Home Now.org--The Few, The Loud, The Latrine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
I think that in the future the guard and reserves will be more integrated with the regulars much like the USMC does with their reserve units. I also think that more attention will be payed to the health of the reserve and guard members as this has been a problem with some who have deployed to Iraq. The guard and reserve will survive but will look a lot different than they have in the past.
28 posted on 04/10/2004 9:57:07 AM PDT by Bombard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
You are correct, Bush should have asked for more and while Rumsfeld is a hard charging genius he is still wrong. If Rumsfeld is talking so much about Special Operations why did he replace the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (Shelton) with a fighter pilot .... another Rumsfeld mistake ..... we can also talk about why Bremer reports directly to Rumsfeld ..... to really win this war I believe your number of 25 divisions is what is really needed (with the added airlift of C-17s & C-5s .... and AC-130s)
29 posted on 04/10/2004 9:57:18 AM PDT by Yasotay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
Major decision since GWBush wants to look as though we are in process of leaving Iraq come election time. Not getting in deeper.

Look for more destructive sabotage by John Kerry and his surrogates. Will get real nasty on Iraq.
30 posted on 04/10/2004 9:59:11 AM PDT by dennisw (“We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.” - Toby Keith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
The whole article is fact-challenged and a UPI hit piece.

Well here's an article from the Washington Times that says about the same thing:

More Troops Needed for Iraq Occupation

31 posted on 04/10/2004 10:01:47 AM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
Thanks for posting the article .... I just hope that General Abizaid gets what he needs to win and that nothing else happens .... we will just have to respectfully disagree.
32 posted on 04/10/2004 10:01:52 AM PDT by Yasotay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Yeah, unfortunately the libs are going to be orgasmic over this new opportunity to bash Bush.
33 posted on 04/10/2004 10:03:29 AM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Yasotay
..... to really win this war I believe your number of 25 divisions is what is really needed (with the added airlift of C-17s & C-5s .... and AC-130s)

I think to win, using the conventional definition, means a heavy occupation of Arabia and Pakistan for 30-50 years, coupled with the overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Free Persia would, IMO, be a valuable and necessary ally, along with India.

My 25 divisions would just have been a down payment.

34 posted on 04/10/2004 10:06:13 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Now you go feed those hogs before they worry themselves into anemia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Yasotay
I'm sorry but we would never get a draft passed.....not today....it would take another 9/11.....or worse for that to happen.
35 posted on 04/10/2004 10:15:45 AM PDT by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Again you are correct. Since the Iranian crisis of the late 1970s, we have let the threat grow for an entire generation. On 9-11, the threat revealed itself fully to the American public. I have always thought we had the same two choices that Islam gives us: convert them or kill them.

Currently I see neither happening. I do believe that we are currently trying to overthrow the current Iranian government. If we succeed, then we may have dodged a big bullet. If we don't, then we are in deep trouble.

36 posted on 04/10/2004 10:21:04 AM PDT by Yasotay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Maybe the military won't be such a Bush slam dunk vote as they were in 2000.

I wouldn't worry too much. Your statement made me think of an incident that happened here a little while back. During one of the regular mortar and rocket attacks that occur in my neck of Iraq, one happened to land somewhat nearby. (That's not to say that it landed anywhere near us, but it was somewhat closer than usual). In the course of getting up out of my chair and moving to the door I hit the corner of a rough wood desk and scratched my arm, drawing a tiny pinprick of blood. The somewhat liberal guy on my team immediatly commented 'Good job, Senator Kerry, we'll get you that fourth purple heart right away.'

The point of that story? Even military types that aren't fully enthusiastic about Bush have zero respect for Kerry. A two minute discussion about his medals is enough to torpedo any support he might possibly have. Former 'soldiers' turned medal slinging war protesters carry no credibility here.

37 posted on 04/10/2004 10:23:37 AM PDT by Steel Wolf (Yo Mullah so fat, he has to iron his robes on the driveway!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dog
A draft clearly cannot occur before the election, but draft boards are being "activated" .... a draft could have happened right after 9-11 .... but not now (you are correct) ..... and it may take another 9-11 ....let's hope not.
38 posted on 04/10/2004 10:26:37 AM PDT by Yasotay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Yasotay
We were welcomed as liberators. Ask someone who was actually there, instead of believing the media. I dare say, were the Marines and Army to be at war against each other, the Marines would destroy them, regardless of the considerable size disadvantage. The Marine model is THE model of a modern fighting force and if you don't know that, you should really not be commenting on this subject.
39 posted on 04/10/2004 10:27:24 AM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache, but not quite worthy of Condi Rice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Yasotay
to really win this war I believe your number of 25 divisions is what is really needed (with the added airlift of C-17s & C-5s .... and AC-130s)

Respectfully, excepting the AC-130's which are already there; that comment is nuts. 25 divisions? To do what? Get shot, that is what. C-5s are just great at SAM evasion too. Come on. This is not symmetrical warfare. Bombardment tactics are ridiculous in this theater. If anything more is needed in Iraq, it is increasing numbers of SF operators. We need to decapitate some folks.

40 posted on 04/10/2004 10:32:27 AM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache, but not quite worthy of Condi Rice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson